The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[JimEverett]

Let me just throw this little fact out there to make sure we're all living in the same reality.

The Special Counsel's Russia investigation was conducted by Trump's Justice Department and overseen by Republican appointees. The congressional investigations into the Russian election activities were held by committees chaired by Republicans. The Democrats didn't formally take control of the House until January 2019.

And they did it because it was well established by US intelligence that Russia had engaged in those activities. Trump's wild insistence that it was all a hoax, coupled with a pattern of false statements made by Trump associates - all about contacts with Russians - looked bad and invited further investigation. By Republicans.

Because it's a serious matter. Continuing to insist it is a hoax continues to look bad, detached, and suspect.

Right - and those investigations exonerated Trump in any criminal enterprise with Russia - especially the most crazy and wild-eyed claims made daily by so many.

But more to the point it wasn't the investigations themselves that did damage. And, as many Republicans continuously pointed out - the evidence pointed out that the Russian campaign was not singularly about Trump. But that pretty much fell on deaf ears.

 

[coldseat]

Exactly.

The past three years have exceeded the wildest imaginings of Putin.

This will be recorded as the most successful disinformation and destabilization campaign in history all because the Democrats cannot accept the results of an election.

You're part of the problem Fiona Hill is currently testifying about. Accept that Russia was trying to help Trump's election with their misinformation campaign because that is what happened. It brought short term gains for them, but is also part of their long term objectives to destabilize our country and by extension all of the west.

The Ukraine had nothing to do with this.

Republicans have contributed and aided Russia in their long term objectives by the incessant spreading of fake conspiracy theories and fake news from law makers, conservative media partners and through their constituents spreading it on social media.

It's time to get your head out of the sand.

 

[efil4]

You were just saying the "short game" didn't matter, that it wasn't about Trump. Now you are justifying making it about Trump.

I'm on my phone from Sulphur LA so let me be clearer.

What I said was for the Republicans, it's about the short game (I. E. Proving no interference) for the Russians it was about whomever was the R candidate. That was Trump. So the justification is right there.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm on my phone from Sulphur LA so let me be clearer.

What I said was for the Republicans, it's about the short game (I. E. Proving no interference) for the Russians it was about whomever was the R candidate. That was Trump. So the justification is right there.

That is different from what you wrote earlier, but okay.

So the short game is denying Trump the Presidency
The long game is Trump being President.

Seems like the short and long game to you is the same, which I am pretty sure was not the point the witness was making.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Let me just throw this little fact out there to make sure we're all living in the same reality.

The Special Counsel's Russia investigation was conducted by Trump's Justice Department and overseen by Republican appointees. The congressional investigations into the Russian election activities were held by committees chaired by Republicans. The Democrats didn't formally take control of the House until January 2019.

One of Putin's goals is destabilization of the United States.

The special counsel's investigation had only one objective, connect Trump to Russia interference.

It was never serious about the possibility that he had nothing to do with it.

Even now that the report concluded there is no evidence of cooperation, [Mod edit Derogatory partisan acronym used to insult the opposition] demands that he be held accountable for "obstruction".

Trump has proven to be much more aggressive in opposing Russia than previous administrations including providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. The presence of Javelin missiles on the ground in Ukraine is a serious check on Russian ambitions.

Yet, Trump is in the middle of an attempt to weaken his re-election prospects, an attempt focused on a country on the front line of Putin's attempt to reassemble the empire.

It is crystal clear who is doing Putin's bidding even if they are too blinded by the bright orange glow of hatred to realize it.

 

[efil4]

That is different from what you wrote earlier, but okay.

So the short game is denying Trump the Presidency
The long game is Trump being President.

Seems like the short and long game to you is the same, which I am pretty sure was not the point the witness was making.

What I wrote earlier was the Republicans short game was to legitimize the election. The Russian long game was to seed the doubts thru interference in our democratic process.

That's all I wrote. Followed by wake up.

But if we aren't careful, the short game morphs into their long game objectives.

As it is now, it's not the same. But more Republican false narratives and theories simply bolsters the long game of misinformation and disruption of trust.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

One of Putin's goals is destabilization of the United States.

The special counsel's investigation had only one objective, connect Trump to Russia interference.

It was never serious about the possibility that he had nothing to do with it.

Even now that the report concluded there is no evidence of cooperation, [Mod edit Derogatory partisan acronym used to insult the opposition] demands that he be held accountable for "obstruction".

Trump has proven to be much more aggressive in opposing Russia than previous administrations including providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. The presence of Javelin missiles on the ground in Ukraine is a serious check on Russian ambitions.

Yet, Trump is in the middle of an attempt to weaken his re-election prospects, an attempt focused on a country on the front line of Putin's attempt to reassemble the empire.

It is crystal clear who is doing Putin's bidding even if they are too blinded by the bright orange glow of hatred to realize it.

Do I need to once again, for the third time in this thread for people continuing to abdicate factual representation to push a lazy narrative, copy and paste the actual mandate of the special counsel appointment?

Honestly, just one time in the next 2000 pages, I would like one Trump defender to offer a single, holistic, cohesive, fact-based argument that does not rely upon endless fallacies, intellectual dishonesty, and/or easily debunked factual inaccuracies. This groundhogs day discussion pattern is really getting old.

 

[JimEverett]

What I wrote earlier was the Republicans short game was to legitimize the election. The Russian long game was to seed the doubts thru interference in our democratic process.

That's all I wrote. Followed by wake up.

Right - which is exactly the opposite of what happened. Revisionist history is far too weak a term to use in describing the idea that Democrats were not frothing at the mouth about making "Russia-gate" something to de-legitimate the election of Trump. In fact, that was the singular focus of pretty much every single day.

Sure, in response to that, Republicans are going to say "Trump was elected legitimately" but I don't see how that is some argument that Republicans were not making the point that Russian activities went far beyond Trump - because they actually were making that point.

 

[coldseat]

The special counsel's investigation had only one objective, connect Trump to Russia interference.

It was never serious about the possibility that he had nothing to do with it.

Even now that the report concluded there is no evidence of cooperation, [Mod edit Derogatory partisan acronym used to insult the opposition] demands that he be held accountable for "obstruction".

Read that to yourself again. It may make sense in your head, but you're contradicting yourself 3 ways to Sunday.

The special counsel's objective was to investigate links between Trump campaign and Russia, because there were many. It was also tasked with investigating all of Russia's attempts to interfere in the election. Which Mueller did, the report clearly lays that out. Russia's efforts went beyond Trump, but his campaign/election was a central part of their efforts.

It's not that hard to understand unless you're trying to totally remove Trump and his campaign from any association with Russia.

 

[wardorican]

Yes. When I call my mom on her land line, I need to turn my phone volume a lot. It is always super loud, that, of i had it turned up due to a quiet call, i could hear her almost like a speaker phone setting.

Depends on the volume setting, the connection, and the phone ear speaker strength.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Right - which is exactly the opposite of what happened. Revisionist history is far too weak a term to use in describing the idea that Democrats were not frothing at the mouth about making "Russia-gate" something to de-legitimate the election of Trump. In fact, that was the singular focus of pretty much every single day.

Sure, in response to that, Republicans are going to say "Trump was elected legitimately" but I don't see how that is some argument that Republicans were not making the point that Russian activities went far beyond Trump - because they actually were making that point.

Trump supporters, including some Republicans, falsely claimed and continue to claim that boosting Trump's campaign was not part of Russia's interference strategy. It absolutely was.

They also continue to falsely claim that Mueller's report "exonerated" Trump's campaign of coordinating with Russia. It does not.

Mueller made it very clear that he could not prove that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but that he could not exonerate him either.

He pointed out that there was ample proof that Trump welcomed and sought out Russia's efforts to help him win. He just couldn't prove that Trump actively coordinated with Russia.

 

[samiam5211]

Yes. When I call my mom on her land line, I need to turn my phone volume a lot. It is always super loud, that, of i had it turned up due to a quiet call, i could hear her almost like a speaker phone setting.

Depends on the volume setting, the connection, and the phone ear speaker strength.

It just goes to show just how little defense Trump has left. He has put out this tweet suggesting that he wasn't overheard on the phone despite the fact that Sondland confirmed what the aid said he overheard. - SAD

 

[bdb13]

Yes. When I call my mom on her land line, I need to turn my phone volume a lot. It is always super loud, that, of i had it turned up due to a quiet call, i could hear her almost like a speaker phone setting.

Depends on the volume setting, the connection, and the phone ear speaker strength.

Well that's just absurd. I worked in a call center before, call after call after call, sitting next to other operators. There were certainly times where you can hear the person on the other end of the line without the phone being on speaker, and there were certainly times where the person on the other end of the phone was speaking loudly and you had to move the earpiece away from your ear.

It's completely asinine to say that what is alleged is impossible.

 

[st dude]

Trump has proven to be much more aggressive in opposing Russia than previous administrations including providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. The presence of Javelin missiles on the ground in Ukraine is a serious check on Russian ambitions.

Its so crazy to me that you can hear the testimony from a parade of witnesses, some Trump appointees, others long term diplomats with impeccable records, and write what you just wrote. Wow.

It was Congress that approved military aid for Ukraine. The whole impeachment proceeding is about how Trump held up the aid for a political favor.

In what world is holding up aid to Ukraine being aggressive in opposing Russia? Its the exact opposite of that.

Now if your fallback is Trump didn't hold back aid, I could explain that to you in great detail as Taylor B did in his Ukraine primer how that has been proven. I just cant understand it for you Archie.

 

[efil4]

One of Putin's goals is destabilization of the United States.

The special counsel's investigation had only one objective, connect Trump to Russia interference.

It was never serious about the possibility that he had nothing to do with it.

Even now that the report concluded there is no evidence of cooperation, [Mod edit Derogatory partisan acronym used to insult the opposition] demands that he be held accountable for "obstruction".

Trump has proven to be much more aggressive in opposing Russia than previous administrations including providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. The presence of Javelin missiles on the ground in Ukraine is a serious check on Russian ambitions.

Yet, Trump is in the middle of an attempt to weaken his re-election prospects, an attempt focused on a country on the front line of Putin's attempt to reassemble the empire.

It is crystal clear who is doing Putin's bidding even if they are too blinded by the bright orange glow of hatred to realize it.

We have had troops on ground there for years.

Javelins are no good for those who don't know how to operate them. And there is no you tube video that comes in the box.

Trump has been soft on Russia starting from day 1 looking to lift sanctions imposed by Obama admin.

 

[bdb13]

I'm just going to say it, I think the Democrats have done an outstanding job of laying this out and at this point they're really can be no doubt as to what's occurred

 

[LA - L.A.]

I'm just going to say it, I think the Democrats have done an outstanding job of laying this out and at this point they're really can be no doubt as to what's occurred

I agree and I think they're still waiting on court decisions about other witnesses who have ignored their subpoenas. There's some critical witnesses who have yet to testify.

 

[buzd]

I agree and I think they're still waiting on court decision's about other witnesses who have ignored their subpoenas. There's some critical witnesses who have yet to testify.

That could end up being a blessing vis a vis order of testimony.